gift from the french, not ultimately. >> thank you very much. it seems like the general move to the balkans now that it is the largest discipline for a variety of reasons. do you think the courts ultimately have been successful or do you think it's not lived up to the effort that was put into it? >> i mean, when i called this the most successful manhunt, it really refer to the main event, getting the bodies into the court and not the decisions the court been made, which are controversial. up in some very controversial acquittal's, although the most controversial one has been now reversed. they haven't covered themselves in glory. at the end it's going to be hard, class helpful sort of story. if you talk to the families of the dead, the bosnians, they will say it took so long, so few

people have had to face justice. some of them all over old because some of the worst criminals have faced the world's most lenient penal system. so they will say it is very much half-full, but the idea that not having it all is unthinkable. some measure of justice was done. it will never be enough, the kind of scale of killing that took place. it is a bit like the u.n. is completely flawed. it falls over itself. it's at odds with itself but if you abolished it you have to reinvent it the next day. >> do you think they would be a similar manhunt one day for syrian war criminals? >> i really, really hope so. i know that some of the people

who were involved in this manhunt are now building is occasion cases so that when they they will be able maybe to prosecute people in the assad regime, people in daesh. what they are doing very bravely is smuggling out documents that could one day prove these people are guilty, smuggling them out of syria and keeping them in europe and going through them and building a case that when they could convict these people. but first you need a tribunal or court, and for that you need the world to agree. we need to have the security council to agree. if one day there's a court, there's at least a case that i could put them in jail. >> so by necessity, these

operations when they were occurring were secretive. how hard was it for you to ferret out what happen? >> what i took out, the experience was used to rejection. i would say three quarters would say go to hell, which was quite right. from intelligence, special forces. people think of you know, this is a story worth telling. an amazing story your we did the right thing. it's good that it comes out. so ultimately i had moments when i thought i'm not going to be able to do this. people just don't want to talk about it. in the end there's that percentage of people who take that view and who were prepared to talk.

>> any more questions? >> okay. [applause] >> thank you very much. thank you. >> for copies of the book are of able at the cash register. please remember to fold up your chairs, and he will be at the table. signy books so please form a line to the right. [inaudible conversations] >> here's a look at some of the current best selling nonfiction books according to the "washington post."

that's a look at the current nonfiction bestsellers according to the "washington post." many of these authors have or will be appearing on booktv. you can watch them on our website, booktv.org. >> on sunday march 6, booktv is alive with author and journalist jane mayer on our live monthly call-in show. jane mayer is a staff writer for "the new yorker" where she reports on government secrecy, the role of money in politics and u.s. counterterrorism policy. in her most recent book dark money she reports on the political and economic underpinnings of the conservative movement with a focus on charles and david koch. or other titles include strange justice in which examines the sexual harassment allegations against justice clarence thomas during his confirmation hearings. and landslide which looks at internal dissension within the reagan administration during the last four years of his presidency.

in 2008 she appeared on booktv is afterwards program to discuss her book the dark side spirit if you start at the beginning after 9/11, the lawyers pretty much laid the foundation for a program of coercive interrogation. and they did so first, the first thing that happens is the president coming to truly bush to vice president cheney decide to get rid of the geneva conventions which are the rules and to uphold the standards for how to treat prisoners of war. when they get rid of the rules, the rules of war, they also declared that the detainees are not criminals which gets rid of the criminal code, they are basically detainees in a legal limbo with the make up the rules as they go along. >> jane mayer live on booktv's "in depth" sunday march 6 new until 3 p.m. eastern.

>> welcome to anaheim on booktv. the southern california city is situated 30 miles southeast of los angeles. with help from our time warner cable partners, in the next hour we will travel the city and surrounding areas to talk with local authors as we explored the literate life of orange county's largest city. we begin with a look at the impact president theodore roosevelt 1903 to work of western states have on the conservation movement as author tried one talk that his book. >> -- chris epting talks about his book. >> teddy roosevelt when he first arrived in california in 1900 as part of his big nine week tour was fairly subdued because he came in to the desert he came in to the town called bar so. he enjoyed it. they enjoyed the welcome h makep and whether to start going up the the coast i think you begin to get really amaze. the first time he saw the

pacific ocean he was in all. the first read what he saw in santa cruz, then we arrived at vicinity that's when you really understood what this undertaking is, what the trip is all about and he is just totally tousled, becomes poetic, writes letters, all these things to try and sum up what his feelings were. that was for him i think seeing the great outdoors getting away from the city, away from politics to arrive in nature the cradle of nature. that was we saw the beauty and majesty of california. the origins are interesting. ..

intel, roosevelt picture at the next news to gone on camping trips that was taking place. john meer was getting concerned because the matches they read about yosemite and other similar areas, he was being commercialization that concern him. he was seen a lot of blogging taking place. all of a sudden there it is certainly realized even when you had real federal protectionand come it doesn't get you all of the outlet. so i think that is why when roosevelt verse reach out, he was going to be in europe at the time and actually changed his trip because he had the opportunity was to a chance to

address these concerns about what's going on, especially commercial logging in the area. so he saw that coming and he seized the opportunity, changed his trip, didn't go to europe. the camping trip was a very select few. it was for men to teddy roosevelt, john meer and two guide/coax min charlie of my day of my deck and another archie meinert. and so as a result of that, a lot of memories of the trip comes from those two guys who had sort of plot the course. this is backcountry camping and i had to prepare food and all that. these men pay very careful attention and were able to observe the background, watch the silhouettes over a campfire. it is said to the powerful sense of what is happening. the observation because as they

recounted in a memoir, and they saw the initial meeting has been the kind of struggle with two egos, two very powerful man that had to find a common ground. i think the most interesting observation came when one of the guys observed your given in roosevelt's face a little bit. php said you've got to get over this little boy habits. i think what is fascinating is roosevelt with that criticism evidently acted on it as well. it's an interesting you haven't known this guy for eight hours, guess you're telling them he had to give up a real passion of his. he's open to the idea of a peer but is really critical about that if the trust that roosevelt was giving him in a very short then.

paragraph relation really stands out as something monumental because adults are roosevelt's view of the natural world. all of a sudden he was going to hunt. clearly giving the ability to affect his point of view. roosevelt were camping on three different spots. the first night was a place called mariposa grove, which is a beautiful grove and it's fairly simple cap unix variants, not that wrestling a thing. they go upon horseback to glacier point over the valley in five feet of snow in some cases. here's the president of the united states riding horseback all these horseback all the smiles that these trails, completely avoiding the press or any guess i want to get a glimpse of him. so 1992, getting to glacier point, it's nuts about five or six inches overnight on top of it. it is an interesting night at

the man and very rugged and very pure and this is the night where they really kind of bonded especially over the fire because of what the weather was doing and put them closer together. night three they came into the valley. they came to the place called vital fall with this beautiful waterfall and that was a chance to talk about the night before and how crazy it is then that also talk about future plans that roosevelt might help. he scares the lobbyist ensures. he issued enough to know he is the leader of the free world and he takes good advantage of those opportunities and fills roosevelt with information about why it's not just enough to love but when you have the power to do so it's important to preserve it as well. conservation was something roosevelt taught us to a small degree. but i think it required a catalyst to kind of step in and

get him fired up and help them understand their risks. he had no idea what was happening. in the abstract you have conservationists and that she didn't have someone to focus it down and get riveting topic. it became actionable that he go back and say okay, we need this, this and miss. muir gave the action plan that really make a difference. interestingly, when roosevelt leaves yosemite and muir and he parkways, he's talking about yosemite, so he is already within days of meeting, he's already really passion and he goes back in that scene after we see and consider national brand marks. over the course of the

presidency, the process goes on and roosevelt is very formidable and he let it be known that he wants this thing done and why it's called the father of conservation. it is a result of the trip when he comes back within a couple years he's got to get hundreds of things find with very little pushback. people understood that roosevelt was serious to him. with john muir in the background, everybody understood these were men and there's no getting in your way. john muir by all accounts was very pleased by what peter roosevelt was doing, then it's time anon, the stimulus eventually go, that is the one that broke muir tire. he was in a position to do much about it. politics had changed by 1914

record for mr. muir die. that is the one he wanted to know that just didn't happen beyond yosemite. again, he was always nervous but both in the terror roosevelts admiration in washington. he wanted more as well. muir was a man who never wants to stop. and believed in his heart you could never give up the fight. no matter what roosevelt did, there is always going to be more than muir would've wanted. roosevelt legacy speaks for south in terms of what they protect it and certainly a wonderful legacy. there is absolutely no way that the president today can escape globalization the way he did. you have to remember, when it's done to glacier point, there are

down below the hotel having a radio content. they had no clue what the president was, if he was okay. the press was allowed up there. this is the last time the president could disappear within naturalist to do nothing more than become friendly with somebody and get inside someone's head and began to and and build awareness and appreciation of nature. there is no social media. none of these sources to document. i think it is poetic but there is no official documentation. a painting of roosevelt valet. there were no scribes that they're taking everything down. batman is actually affect good these men to be able to have each other's company with no

interference under campfires. that is the magic of the meeting that it wasn't that well documented. i was allowed to flourish in a natural pace and that is what matters today and why was such a fun subject to write about. >> max, we speak with jennifer keene who talked about how world war i changed the way veterans were treated. >> the first world will establish how america went to war in the 20th century. all of these components we assume are part of serving in the military, and mass military, and melting pot experienced by the government, something that

takes overseas ,-com,-com ma all of those things, that starts the first world war. so what the united states army does well and what it does strongest carries those lessons forward. the next day notice given -- when we think of doughboys, we are thinking about the duration of the war. we are really distinguishing them from regular army soldiers. in the first world war, doughboys came from all parts of the united states because the worst world war is the first time that we can script a mass army from the very beginning of the conflict. we had always had draft before the past, but they had come in the middle of the conflict, the american revolution and the civil war when voluntary had dropped off. we do it very differently to enact a draft right in the beginning, a short window of opportunity to volunteer any

army that closes off. so what that means that 72% of the army will keep its scripted and they have to spread the burden out equally throughout the united states and the idea that this is meant to be an army on the population. >> there were few reasons america decided to raise its army different in the first quarter. the first reason was they expected there to be large casualties. the interest of war in 1917 has been going on for two and a half years, so they understand in fact they are going to need millions of men and they are worried that after the enthusiasm they would be a drop off than they would be able to build the kind of army that they needed. the second thing that america was worried about was raising its army efficiently because they also knew in 1917.this was going to be a war.

but that meant as you had to raise an army but you had to mobilize your economy as well. they were sort of worried about the flip side that too many people volunteer and that would train manpower from industry and so you might have meant in the army but then no guns or tanks or anything. so it was a way to ensure efficient, steady growth of the mass military is capable of fighting and was also going to be armed and sad to make sure you can do well. the demographdemograph ic being chosen represented the way they were enacted. and the first set of regulations, all the men between the ages of 21 and 30 registered and in 1918 next the out take. is that sort of sweet spot of 21 to 30 years old.

and then of course, we have a racially diverse an ethnically diverse population. and so, african-americans aren't actively represented in terms of their proportion in terms of the draft as their ethnic soldiers. so these are foreign speaking soldiers for the most part. a little bit cowardly fear. technically -- unless he became an american citizen. a lot of people didn't understand of regulations so we and up with one out of five soldiers in the army actually being an immigrant. so the training for american soldiers in the first world war was fairly rudimentary and in a sense how well-trained you were depended on when you enter the military. but again, we were not prepared. even though we declared war, you

had to get these guys house. you had to have close. a lot of guys are training because they don't have rifles. and maybe bear on the rifle range of learning marksmanship, but they are not learning a lot of the highly technical aspects of fighting entrenched warfare. so the units that do the best are the ones that organize early. they did the rudimentary training in the united states. they go to france and get some trading in the trenches, but they also get training in terms of combined arms because entrenched warfare is not enough by 1918 to have guys running in to machine gun. you actually have to coordinate between your infantry, artillery, all of these things are not allowed to very technical communication, two single guys know what they're doing. all of that takes time to organize. the units that form the early 17

have time to go through that and it enters onto the battlefield and they begin to learn how to fight this work, but a lot of guys are dropping in 1918 to get basic training and they get shipped to france and it's a critical moment fighting and they just get thrown in. one of the criticisms always set the x. of the united states in the first world war is how many poorly trained men get thrown into battle. it shouldn't be a lot surprised that none of those guys xenopus casualties. they basically don't know what they are doing. this is interesting because of the delayed the united states was getting into the war and they will take almost a full year to raise and train its army to the planet could actually make a difference. this led to a big disagreement between france and the united states because france said we have the expertise. we have the officers. we know they are doing it just

give us these guys. get them to ask everyone i'll collate them into our armies and this will just be the way america contributes. you could imagine it's never something the united states is going to agree to. that would not say sure, just take 10,000 guys and put them in french uniforms and send them into battle. so john jay pershing, who says no we are going to form an independent american army. but again, as i said this needs a lot of time in organizing your logistics so you can actually apply these guys are not alert and had a need. so for freedoms it's interesting because of course the first american troops arrived, but

then there's a lot of criticism about the way of fighting an organized team. this is where we have a think a pretty particularly important distinction between america and france in the first world war. a lot of american soldiers trained temporarily with the french. but there are four regiments, african-american regiments given to the french for the entire course of the war and they are amalgamated into french division and they fight exceptionally well. one of those units is 369th infantry regiment harlem hell fighters, one of the most famous of the entire war. they are highly decorated. they serve with distinction and this is in contrast to what happened to other african-american combat units in the american army where they are

poorly trained the minute they have any difficulty at all they are pulled out of line. people are getting rid of black officers. and so out of that experience, african-americans comes a very clear contrast between france and the united states. france is willing to give them a chance, train him on show if they can do. let them show the french that they can do. america is exactly the opposite. so in other words when i say there's no amalgamation, that is the one exception to that rule and that becomes a very powerful example for the postwar civil rights movement. america has a chosen sex in terms of what happens in terms of the battlefield. it doesn't matter in terms of the final bit jury. when you think about the training issues the american army has, the question we should ask is how high was the cost when americans have that effect.

with the always interesting about world war i as you have the deadliest battle in american history. america is a torres, but that is the deadliest battle. nobody knows that. what is interesting is very few people really raised the question about wild without well after the war could the french game, british came, the generals criticized the high decibel that they allow. purging kind of walks away on stage. nobody succumbs and said you did the wrong thing in terms of sacrifice. to these men really have to die. so the question is not that -- the issue is not the lack of preparation that americans did make a difference. it is just in the difference they make the cost is probably really high to them on an individual level.

america fought actively and the first civil war for six months. there were 52,000 american deaths. a lot of people for the macs i've never really on the battlefield. but if you shoot out shares took a hundred thousand of french and german and british that a bag still seems very small. the american sacrifice proved to be that crazy compared to what the other nations have lost. when american soldiers come home, they absolutely expected to go back to their old lives can pretty much walk away and say thanks for the memories. there's almost no preparation for their return home. again, had america not been prepared for fighting the war, they did expected to attend a 1918 even though they knew they were going to be casual tuesday had constructed a system to care for these men.

when the war ends unexpectedly soon, after they return them home in a way that was going to help them raise emotionally or medically or vocationally the government was completely unprepared for that. there's a few halfhearted efforts but the whole thing was a par. the reason this is important is because it leads to several political movements by veterans to address the lack of appropriate planning for their homecoming. the first sort of momentum veteran to this them that we see in the early 1920s of veterans began agitating for some and called -- they argued they get some of the american economy. they can't get jobs and the government should have seen this coming. what better is .2 is the fact

civilians to stay at home got paid record wages. soldiers who served in the army only got paid a dollar a day. what they wanted the suggested compensation. they want their army pays to be retroactively adjusted. so they win this argument in 1924 and is given to trusted compensation is but they don't have the cash. for a lot of guys if you serve in the military, you could have a bond that was going to mature in 20 years to about $1200. in 1924 they take the bond and accept the compromise. second, political activism in the early 1930s in the midst of the great depression. you're a veteran camera down on your luck, you have this government iou in your drawer. you don't want to wait any to wait anymore. ui like i want my money now so

this leads the bonus march in washington d.c. we have upwards of 40,000 veterans in d.c. demanding immediate payment of their compensation, their bonuses. long story short in 1932 decades in the day. they do finally get it in 1936. where this really matters is in the midst of world war ii. in world war ii who will be world war i veterans who basically say they can do this a second time. when our sons come home another mass constructed i may come you need to do a better job bringing them back home than you did for us. we say learn some lessons from our experience and the lesson they want america to learn from the g.i. bill of rights. the gip -- good g.i. bill of rights is a piece of legislation that is what lobbied for basically pushed through by world war i veterans.

in that sense of the filled homecoming, it makes a difference because after world war ii the government is really worried that if we have a bonus march of 4 million veterans coming out in the population, what is going to have to want to have a world war ii world war ii veterans become a social revolution. they don't want that to happen. so that the ultimate legacy politically is the g.i. bill of rights, which is obvious early a piece of legislation for average people during that timeframe. the military services they put it back in its variants from american men in the 20th century. the government wants to serve, go home and move on. but you see veterans become a post with a force in american aid in the 20th century and they are politicized.

not just groups like the american region or groups advocating for veteran benefit, but we see civil rights movements coming out of these wars. african american veterans come home and energized the civil rights movement and entirely new direction with new leadership and new ideas have not transformed civil rights movement in the united states. world war i does matter in american has jury. it actually is a pivotal can't let up a lot more that attempts to get for most readers of american has jury. -- american history. >> the idea actually came from the editor at the "oc weekly" at

the time. he would ask me questions about mexican because i was the only latino and staff -- the only person of color. so i would always answer that it's silly stuff like what does this word mean in spanish, why do mexicans like paris doesn't talk is so much. he said there's a lot of ignorant people who have questions that we should make fun of them. why don't we do a column called "ask a mexican" to more people than your questions about mexicans and you're able to answer them. i wasn't offended by the idea. i didn't want to do it at first because i didn't think anyone would care. in journalism you wanted to use tories about -- the people i care about one way or another. you don't care if people like you or hate you, as long as they review. who's going to want to read an advice column about mexicans. we needed to fill in a space the paper that week said mike fine, i'll go back. he said it's only one time.

it'll be jokey. so i thought to myself, what could be the dumbest question somebody could ask me about mexicans? he asked me before. this is supposed to be an advice column. we have to start off with dear mexican. why do white people call mexican gringos. my response was dear macho, a slightly harsher word. mexicans don't call gringos gringos. mexicans actually called gringos so much as. so i read it, found it, thought whatever. i could embed this. it was funny, but i don't have to do this again. i'm fine. i was wrong because people went absolutely nuts for a good somebody to love it, some people hated it. people were carried an even crazier i put he's got a question about mexicans?

ask me. then i put my personal e-mail. people called him at the start of the men in question immediately. what part of illegal don't mexicans understand? is it true that prescott but still puncher via? what is the history of turkey has? whatever you could possibly imagine from g rated to triple x-rated, people asked them to me and people continue to ask questions. feminists want to inspire mexicans always so happy? i can see them picking strawberries, packing 15 to a truck and they are lasting, busting each other, questions like that, how can you ever forget them? america more than 150 years after we took over the american southwest, we are still a mystery to us. you could either cry about it and say we are so good to try to

examine whether that is coming from and answer peoples questions. the inception about mexicans has been around for 100 years. the boys become gang members in the present wrapping on a school at 14 to become pregnant, do we don't care about education, that we have all-caps, that we are all super proud and ,-com,-com ma that we all hate white people, that we all hate puerto ricans and cubans. basically mexicans hate everyone except the people we hate the most are mexicans themselves. there's so many misconceptions. some of them are based on stereotypes said my job as a columnist is to do the research. if mexicans love to drink and drive, let look at the dui rate of mexicans are more prone to criminality than other groups or races or ethnicity. let's look at fbi statistics or the fear of just disappeared what i do with my column has find the stats, give out the

stereotype. to liven it up as humor. this is not an academic column. i love academia, but academic column suffer from having no humor at all. hike it makes academic with bulger, in-your-face added a hard column today but it's a challenge for me so i love doing it. criticisms about mexicans come from everywhere. the right-wing saying this is an anti-american antiwhite column. you have criticisms from the left. you are demanding a serious sub deck which is the treatment of mexicans right now in the night to. some people think it's not money. some people think it's not racist enough against mexicans are not racist enough against white people. to me that shows that the column is doing its duty. the question of racism and that is there. mexican bioassay with these monkey wrench in american

relationship because black and white, maybe asian and of course indians are on reservations and who cares about that. then he gave extra cans of americans have never been able to figure out mexican. do they hate them more than blacks? are they lower or higher than blacks? it is interesting. the great oral historian wynton enervated mexican-american in chicago and said we were the buffer zone between the ethnic waste of chicago and the african-americans of chicago. african-americans could relate to us because we were no-space as does the white folks. the way people could relate to us because we were kind of right in the middle. it's interesting now because what, especially mexicans moving into this, republican politicians go to african-americans and say we haven't liked you for 200 years, but now we have this new group. we would like you now because let's unite in eating this

mexicans. those questions are the type of questions i take on. especially when it comes to race relations come it's always been a dream of maneuvering and using the newest tivo to demonize the people that follow after. so let's get over that. we will never be a post-racial society but at the least we can say this is what we have to do. we have more similarities than differences. let's unite against her discrimination. cuba has always said major told a talk about serious issues. i would tell people that satire is a way to play the fool to make very important point about bigger issues at hand to do political humor has been part of the united states before 1776 for that matter. people don't like being lectured at. people don't want to read for an academic. they want laughs. they want to get average. more importantly they want to laugh. it's easier pill to swallow when you're laughing. no one wants to be reprimanded.

people might read it and say screw you, that was really funny. people say i don't agree with your politics at all, but you are really funny and i like reading it. for me it's all incremental but therese. if you are at least ready what i have to say, but you're paying attention, which is far better than what this country is right now where we are not even wanted to listen to the other point of view. we just demonize insane stem from this person for this political point of view. it's not even worthwhile to pay attention to it. that is just toxic to our country. there will always be opportunities to bring humor into the most racist for horrific of questions. one time somebody asked me why to mexican men like to so much, which is absolutely nuts. i remember reading that. when you get those questions, you know they are trying to goad you into yelling that it doesn't do anything.

so i got the question i'm like okay, you think you are really clever. let's play ball. i ended up debunking the question. a real quick question on trick answer. men of color has always been to the nice for hypersexuality and frankly criminal sexuality but the stats don't merit such a stereotype. stats prove what manner twice were likely than mexican men and are more likely to commit assaults in african-american men who never hear that discussed the media because it is true. especially demagogues don't like the truth. demagogues like stereotypes. so i didn't get flustered by the horrific question. i was able to answer it and i was able to cut the ham i managed danish words. i always get the last word. people want me to get angry or just hyperventilate.

some of the most racist questions i've got have been mexicans talking trash on african-americans. i'm not an apologist for anything especially when i tackle heat i tackle he'd come under it is. when i get racist or or mexicans or them have it more than racist white people because you did appear to you're racist, done. mexicans can't stop if we are doing the same other people do to us. what i've learned from a columnist the american people, there's a lot of racism out there. but not as much as you would think. there's a lot of questions and i get it. you live in minnesota, north dakota tire life, then there's also this mexicans for your neighbors. you are going how questions. a divided between innocently ignorant and willfully ignorant. willfully or the one leg were

part of the legal don't mexicans understand, why are they so drunk? that is based on someone's biases that they should get over. but then you have questions that are innocentlinnocentl y ignorant. why do so much that the con drive victorians and how that music in the short answer is the one with the tubas and the one with the accordion and they came from german and czech immigrants to mexico and texas in the late 19th century and brought their music with them in mexican assimilated into it. i'm not going to expect the average american to know that. why would i call someone a lesson tonight that racist? innocently ignorant. at that point my job is to educate those folks. a lot of americans are like that. they are innocently ignorant of a lot of questions they have. what i would want people when they raid ask punctured "ask a mexican" to take away as they

are just like americans if not more so. if anything, this idea, this hysteria about mexicans not be like previous generations of immigrants is completely overblown. we are different. mexico is across the border for the united states. to united states. this day and age you are from thailand yet a plane raid and a day later your entire web. mexicans will have always been assimilating into this country by the stock plan that i always use the mexicans are american as not shows. not only that, mexicans are assimilating into the united states and to acknowledge the assimilation. if you have questions about mexicans, it's a great experience. it's a great book for you to take a road trips and airplanes. i don't care how you prevent because it's not something you have to read from from cover to cover. you can read it, have a couple laughs, do that again. it's an evergreen boat.

it's about double always felt little by little because people always have questions about mexicans and more importantly you get to learn and you get to entertain. >> and now, a literary tour of anaheim, california with the help of art local cable partner time warner. we start our trip by sitting in a class at chapman university where students are studying the writing of holocaust survivor elie wiesel. >> next week we are going to be reading part of dr. ehrlich's memoir and part of the reason we are doing that is to kind of feel our way into the topics next tuesday evening. also, because i think we have already begun their road in the

article to realize the holocaust survivor with a couple of pages and nuance. this class actually began when they learned that the professor would be coming to chapman university for four years and in spring 20 a lot of. the president a chance to the university, dr. stroup asked him if he would be interested in coming back as a presidential hello. for a week each spring to my very great surprise and delight agreed. so my colleague in english, jim osborne and i created a chord to engage in different disciplines in the university and really coming to understand someone not

only as a holocaust survivor, but as the author of some 60 different books which encompass many different john rice. and so it began as a real kind of adventure for my colleague and i am the best part of teaching is to sometimes get to sit in a seminar with student and great works that you haven't had a chance to read before. i think part of what makes a class like this such a really old learning mix variances bringing together who are facing the course for general education are credited with different disciplines. so there are students in the classroom take heed for credit.

certainly many of you we are talking about in the book are religious. and ethical themes. students taking the course for history credit, others to taking it for english credit. and then we have this great -- i still love this. there are students who are in business communication, you know, business majors, phil majors. and i think that is part of rate luxury of being able to teach a seminar in the class like this isn't limited view around student is to be able to have them really learning from one another. sitting around, very literally sitting around a table and having the chance to have those entered his customary conversations. >> the question of how to connect the history to the writings, we begin as one would

expect with this story not only what happened to the professor and his family in the ghetto and auschwitz and him and his father, but we are trained to look at the world and the message had created that nk tick either. they came together to auschwitz. so i think we have to look at the history and the propaganda. i think that leads us to think about, you know, the questions of our own time, the messages we listen to, how deeply we probe

of messages. i tell my students -- to ask what is good jesuit house? sometimes you get tired of asking that, but i think if we have learned anything from elie wiesel and his writings, it is to us the questions even if we can't buy dancers, keep asking the question here is what myself and i've been doing this now for quite a few years, and i never teach the same course twice. i am always changing books. i am always trying, sometimes with success, sometimes not, trying to bring works together in conversation with each other. i think a very fine short

history book like the one by doris baerga and of war and genocide, it can be a kind of scaffolding within which we can place a memoir and we won't be reading some brief sections from other writers. and it helps us to frame the discussion where we go deeper. in some ways the history of very good history fax can provide a canvas that allows you to develop the smaller areas and choose the colors. it all fits together, one memoir, another memoir speaking in my class earlier today about a fascinating memoir by marjorie perloff who is a great scholar of postmodern literature.

a new book coming out in may called the edge of irony talking about her memoir of being a child in vienna, you know, leaving her home with her parents in 1938 and how much her life was affected by .cfm, but in such a different way than that of someone. -- elie wiesel. history provides a structure we can then go into a too individual experience. i think the one thing and one doesn't want to do in teaching something as complex as the holocaust and other similar topics, what occurred and therefore, wherever this to

overwhelm the magnitude of it. i think we look at a screen and with the body is, the footage that came out of other camps and often our first response is to say that is horrible and there is nothing i can do about it. i think what we really want to do is teach it away that connects individual experience and makes you feel by being a dedicated, involved citizen of the world he could make a difference in the world. i see my role as an educator to try to mentor students said that they have had this experience when possible that connect to

with survivors like leon legs or elie wiesel or my friend natalie weinstein gold for others. they not only learn all the millions of different stories that make up the holocaust. you can't just say the holocaust and think we have any idea what it really was. itself is different that that form the tapestry. and then to feel empowered themselves as accurately, that is why knowing the history of selling port, to be the witnesses to the future and to make that their responsibility to it in a sense become living history, to move that history forward into a time when people will not have the opportunity to

hear directly from those who have experienced it. >> next, lori cox han discusses the history of women in politics and the area she fees facing women's and higher offices. >> the history of women in politics in the united states goes back a lot further than a lot of people realize. particularly when you talk about a woman running for president, is that you are going in the president for 1876. this is even before women got the right to vote with the passage of the 19 amendment in 1920. so there is a long history if you look at all the different ways that the women's rights movement of women not only fighting for suffrage but political weekly quality throughout our nation's history. if you look at the different waves of the women rights and

feminism, there is no time. that would've been politically it. i might just be different ways. a contemporary sense, one of the biggest events for women in political office came in 1992, what we always referred to in so many women running for office in so many who got elected that year. that was a significant increase in numbers of women in congress at the state level. that marked a very important turning point. for a few decades we've seen a lot of attention focused on women getting elected to higher positions. women serving in congress. one we have not seen its women as governors. we've only had 36 women serve as governors in the nation's history. there is a disparity of women getting into the position.

only cap about electing the first of an president or vice president, that is a sick mexican -- there is debate now over whether or not it is so called the glass ceiling some people refer to as the glass elevator. that seems to be the last hurdle that women in politics need to achieve in order to be able to say there are no barriers in the political system anymore for women. the interesting thing is if you look at the largest states california and new york, illinois, pennsylvania, texas, texas is the only state that elected a woman governor. the most recent was dan richards. we've seen a woman run for governor of texas recently, but no one have one. it's especially surprising given california and new york, blue states were more progressive than it was not elected a woman governor. we've had women running both

sides. it is so unique state so unique state-by-state intern says what is contributing to fewer women but across the board was women in politics and there's a lot of research and political science right now that one of the biggest issues that fewer women are choosing to run for public office right now. younger women especially don't say massive post about getting involved in politics right now. that means fewer women in the political pipe would. so when you look at what we you look at what we would call the on deck circle for presidential candidates every four years, you tend to look at governors and prominent senators, baiters within congress. you look at a current or former vice president and they just aren't very many women there. it was the only woman with a leadership position today if nancy pelosi. >> it is now my privilege to present the gavel of the united states house of representatives to the first woman speaker in

our history, the gentlelady from california, nancy pelosi. [cheers and applause] >> she was speaker of the house and if so minority leader. there just aren't enough women in the pipeline right out to be automatically can get her to run for president. this year we did see history being made with a woman running for president upon the republican and democratic side. that had never happened before. it is just a matter of getting more women into the pipeline and having them be seen as viable candidates. i think we are moving forward on that issue, particularly from the series can gain. one of the legacies that will come from hillary's campaign in 2008 and again in 2016 is the fact it's not that surprising to see a woman running for president. we have started to get used to seeing at least one woman on the debate stage during the primaries and i think that will

be important moving forward to make sure that progress continues. even more women running on not only the democratic side, but the republican side as well. i'm not bush or his verse on democrats or republicans or the fact that democrats have not dominated woman as a running mate or that the republicans until 2008. neither party has a good record without his consent. over the time. there's been so many women on both sides that would've been terrific running mate for any number of candidates. so both parties need to do a better job in that. both parties are concerned about getting the women's vote. the gender gap favors democrats, but when you look closer at the numbers, 2012 for example, that brought me along among white women and married women and those have a higher turnout than women of color or single women are working moms, single moms.

and so, it is not that democrats have a lock on women's vote. so have been implemented as a running mate, for example, might be a really good outreach to women voters. again, the assumption that women would fall in line about hillary clinton has not proven true because she is tired he struggled with not only polling but in the early stage of having an overwhelming number of women support her because not only are they women support they women supported republican candidates which we forget sometimes that plenty of women and younger women supporting bernie sanders. it is just not automatic. younger women, particularly melinda women who feminism and women's rights movement differently than previous generations. i hear this from my students a lot that they feel like they can do anything they want. there are no barriers on the workforce. they have access to any opportunity. younger women, while they are

very interested in what happened in those previous generations among iconic feminists like gloria steinem, they have a much were diversified you about a defined feminism and women's right. i know older women tend to say he should take it for granted that you have all of these things. but they have grown up in such a different culture than the women who are fighting for all of these things back in the 60s and 70s. it is a challenge to have the women's rights in the continues the ongoing discussion about what is feminism and how do we define that? there are a lot of assumptions and what i call the conventional wisdom of how we used to look at what it will take to elect a woman president arrived they have more women in politics. a lot of those permits. there is no empirical evidence to support it. when you look at challenges to

elect a president you have to look at the context of us just as challenging for a man to get elected president. the idea that it's so much harder for a woman, it is really hard for anyone. when you think about the long campaign and the pre-nomination, so-called invisible primary, then throughout the nomination. and then getting your party's nomination. at various points, gender really does not matter. if you look at hillary clinton in 2008. i've heard people say she lost because she's a woman. she's very good at fundraising. she's proven that throughout her career. there were problems in her 2008 campaign and maybe it's not so much that she lost, but barack obama one. if obama had not been in the ration i've got the nomination,

probably would have been maybe we'd be in the last year the havoc that presidency instead of the obama presidency. the traditional argument about why it's important for women to be like dead and higher public office is that it is a very symbolic and very important way to show that women do have equal standing. we are considered equal in the eyes of the law, but also politically as well. it would certainly change the view if we had a president of how we view commander-in-chief, for example. it's very macho in terms of the aspects and i think that the constitution doesn't change if we elect a woman. the symbolic nature of the presidency would certainly change and for a lot of people, they see that as proof that in politics women truly are equal.

again, it might be generational because i'm not sure millennialist c. at the same way as generation x are baby boomers. they take a different interpretation. a lot of my students will say okay we need to elect a pro-former president. when will we have built first latino president went all gpt kia president. they are interested in broader issues, so i think that might help as we move forward to see more diversity in politics because we are not like into one particular view of what the president or politician is. >> we spoke with robert slayton about the lack of long-term new york governor al smith at impact on american politics. >> of course i am delighted and surprised by the final repeal of

the 18th amendment. i have felt all along that when this matter was submitted to the rank and file, they would readily see that it had no place in our constitution. the >> u.s. pacifying. he really is the important element in politics. it's one of the greatest governors of new york state. he created the modern state government. in many ways he actually rationalize state government at a time that was fairly chaotic, particularly financially. ..

>> his father died fairly young. he had to go to work very, very early. he dropped out of school. he does not have an eighth grade diploma. he does not. he is totally self-taught. his most famous job was he worked in the fulton fish market. later on when he became a new york state representative, there's a famous story where he's debating -- he's a democrat, and he's debating a republican who's definitely from the upper crust. and another, another representative comes in in the middle of the debate and interrupts and goes, boys, boy,

i've got big news, cornell just won the big boat race. wow. okay. so the other gentleman, the republican he's debating, says, well, doesn't much mean much to me. i'm a u of m man, university of michigan. and they say we hope we're not bothering you, al. he says, no, no, problem. i'm an ffm man myself. what school is that? fulton fish market, now with deget on with the discussion? -- now can we getten on with the discussion? he's actually a runner for tammany hall. they'd give you little assignments, oh, would you run this errand? it was a solemn oath. you never broke your oath when you took a contract, or you never got one again. he's a very verbose young map. he's got good oratorical

abilities, he's playing around with the theater, and he rises up x they run him for state legislature. now, something remarkable happens, and it's not entirely clear why. i'm probably one of the leading historians op him, and it's -- on him, and it's not 100% clear. he gets up to albany to the state legislature, and he is, he's a hack. he's supposed to take tammany hall orders. that's what he's supposed to do. and he starts out that way. and it bothers him. it bothers him. he wants to be more. why? i mean, it's just remarkable. and he will stay -- he goes to the state library, the legislature has a library just like congress does. and he pulls lubbock. this guy has a seventh grade education, maybe even sixth. and he starts to read. and if you know the law, it's a very finagled system. he'll look up, you know, state

statute 695.4-3 which is an amendment to 431-5-11. and he'll look up 435-1-11, and then it's -- he stays up til two, three in the morning and then goes to work. he does that for months at a time until he becomes the master of state law. i believe it's 1913, the triangle shirtwaist fire. triangle shirtwaites fire is one of the great american tragedies. it was a sweatshop, just a sweatshop. it was on the tenth and -- the ninth and tenth floor, eighth or ninth or tenth floor of a building. you can still go to the building, the building's still around. it's right near nyu. what you had was a big room with tables. the tables were 75 feet long, and they were bolted to the wall on one side. so in order to move down if you were all the way on the end, you had to go 75 feet down. what you had was row after row

of sewing machines. terrible work. below the sewing machine was lint, was tufts of lint to which oil to dropped, a lubricating owl from the sewing machine. e rows of these, runs of these -- hundreds of these. we never know what started the fire. we do not know what started the fire. they claim somebody was smoking, but cigarette smoking was illegal there, so we don't know. all we know is it went, and it went up fast. so, first of all, in order to run to get out, you had a 75-foot span to run if you were all the way at the end. there were only a couple of exits. there was one door, there was a second door, but it was chained shut because that was legal in order to make sure nobody stole any goods. so they chained it shut, the fire door. there was an elevator. women fellowed the flames -- fled the flames.

on the last elevator going down, you could hear thumps on the way down as bodies fell on top of it. women jumped out -- you had a white house. either you burned to death, or you died in the fall. there is such an outrage. there was over 140 die in this, this was one of the great industrial tragedies in american history. the new york state legislature appoints a commission to investigate. the chair of the commission is robert wagner who passes the wagner act, otherwise known as the social security act. we create social security. smith is the vice chair. and they investigate. they really, really go around new york, which is the great industrial state, and they really investigate conditions. and they start to reform. the conditions they see are terrible. investigators take him up and into these places where there's almost no fire escape, where there's a little cubbyhole in

order to get out x he doesn't just look, he crawls through it. he sees what it is. he is moved by this because he knows where he's coming from, who he is. and he knows this is his people. and they change america. you go to a movie theater, you go to any movie theater where darkness is at a premium. you have to have it dark in order to see the silver screen, have it light up for you. and that darkness is interrupted by a red sign saying "fire exit." fire exit. that is al smith. that's al smith. al smith got that passed, that you have to have clearly marked fire exits. in the days before electricity, it was just a bright red sign, but you have to have that. one of the things on all fire doors, and all americans know this unconsciously, there's a bar you push in order to get out, and the door swings open.

that's al smith. there was one time where it was a negotiating session, and i forget even what party. industrialists weren't willing to give a damn thing to working people, and he just wouldn't give in. and smith finally -- he was governor then, and he finally looked at him, and he said, charlie, your brain should be melted down by a company for use in billiard balls. and they all laughed, and they started to negotiate. he totally reorganizes state government. at one time state finances were absolutely chaotic. what would happen was there were hundreds of state departments, there were just hundreds and totally repetitive. and they would all be submitting budget. nobody would ever figure out who got what or whatever. there would be, actually, the only guy who really knew was the clerk, was the clerk who put together the budget and maybe,

maybe -- and that's doubtful -- the speaker of the house. that was it. smith codifies this into a system of executive departments, each of which is in charge of different agencies and cutting out the repetition. it is, he is known more for social legislation, but he is the great administrative reformer in the history of new york state. ♪ >> in fact, it was roosevelt who placed smith's name before the democratic presidential convention at houston, texas, in 1928. the demonstration and candidate, new york city at the time of his nomination, set a new record for ticker tape and torn-up phonebooks. the happy warrior was a hometown boy who had made good in the big city. >> his popularity is very strong in new york. in those days the term empire state was very real. it is the biggest state in the union by far in those days. and is inevitable just as today the governor of a large state would naturally be discussed as

a potential presidential candidate. in 1924 you have the worst political convention in american history, and i am not kidding and making that up. i'll give you a statistic to prove my claim. 1924 the democrats meet in madison square garden, and they deadlock between the two great factions, the rural democrats -- the party of william jennings bryan -- and the urban democrats, the party of al smith. and they deadlock totally and hatefully. there is a resolution condemning the klan. my god, the ku klux klan. and it fails. it fails. it actually fails. they will not do it. on the other hand, tammany hall, tammany hall takes one of the giant, loudest siren off a fire engine they can find, and whenever smith's name is mentioned, they start the siren going in order to drown out the crowd, and everybody hates it. i mean, it's just a hateful,

disastrous convention. it goes on, and it goes on, and it goes on. we're used to a political convention being on the first ballot. now, in the days before primaries sometimes it would take three or four or five or even seven or eight. the 1924 democratic convention goes to 104 ballots. it is the longest in american history. will rogers says the best line, he says these people, new york invited you here as guests, they didn't invite you here to live. it was terrible. and that ooh race health -- that's really his introduction to the national stage. by 1928 the urban forces had gained ascendancy, and he gets the nomination, and so on it goes. from the very, very first, there is an article on -- i forget the magazine. it was one of the leading intellectual magazines.

this isn't a goofy, you know, right-wing sheet. and they say can, an extremely article says no catholic can ever become president because he owes his allegiance to a foreign moderate who lives in rome. and it's verier you dice. -- erudite. this isn't some hysterical piece. it is in a major national intellectual publication. and smith has to answer. it's a very good answer. it's actually ghost written by one of his key advisers who's jewish. which he thinks is quite amusing, the fact that a catholic is responding to a protestant with a piece written by a jew. so it was kind of interesting in that way. and it just builds. it is kind of like a snowball rolling down the hill to hell and gaining -- that's a mixed metaphor, but okay.

rolling down a hill and just gaining, getting bigger and bigger and bigger. and by the way, he loses badly. the crushing blow to him personally, he actually loses even new york state. he loses his beloved new york state in the '28 presidential election. i actually tracked down what would he have known of america. i tracked down as much as possible. i tracked down what could have been his textbooks, and they're all very nationalistic, america is great, andrew jackson and george washington. it's all great. he, as far as i could find out, there were two exposures to the rest of america for him. one, he went to wild bill cody's wild west show. so that's america. a noble cowboy shooting indians and the heroes of the plains. and he also realize a book put out by -- read a book put out by the police gazette on the life and times of john l. sullivan, the boxer, who is from boston -- which could have been the moon,

as far as he was concerned, for a parochial new yorker. and it was all about if you come up from immigrants and you're strong and you're irish, america will love you. what a great country. what a wonderful, great country. and then he ran into an ugly wall. he was very bitter, extremely bitter by it. it shattered his illusions about america. it wasn't just a loss, as hard as that was, and that was very hard. it shattered his illusions about what this country was. after 1928 one of his key backers -- now, al doesn't have a job. and he's not a rich guy. one of his key backers says we're going to take care, we're going to take care. we're building the world's tallest building, and you're going to be president with a very nice salary. so al smith becomes the first president of the empire state building. if you go to the empire state building, you walk in the lobby, and it's magnificent.

it's an art deco masterpiece. and you walk in, and at the end of the lobby there's this multicolored tile mural that's just beautiful. and you'll see on it, the head of it, it says alfred e. smith, president. franklin was an up and coming politician, and he works with him. i believe that he cared tremendously for franklin roosevelt, but he looked at him as a boy. at one point when he was governor, franklin was head of a commission x they have an argument because franklin's objecting to being treated harshly by robert moses. and al sends him a letter reprimanding him, says you don't know what you're talking about. and when i read that, it reminded me of my father who loved me very dearly, and i loved him back. you know, but every once in a while you get, when you're 12 years old, too big for your

britches. and he would say to me, you've till got milk on your chin -- still got milk on your chip. and that was the taupe of the letter, you're a boy, and you don't know yet. when franklin becomes president, al becomes very bitter and opposes him. there's some ideological differences as well, which i'll explain in a second. but it's also very personal because what al sees is -- and franklin even in '32 winses in a smashing victory -- that the american people had repudiated him, the real thing, in his view, and accepted this half a guy? and given him accolades? that's wrong. that's wrong. there is a note to al, handwritten note, and it is on governor -- it's a governor's card stock, governor's card. and it's handwritten by the governor, and it's 1930. al left the governorship in '28 to run for president. i know who succeeded him. and i'm just starting many, ten

years of research, and i'm looking at this, and it's a handwritten note, and i go, oh, my god. i know who this is. and i kid you not, my breath was coming fast at this point. i mean, i'm getting breathless. e open it up, and there it is signed, "your pal, frank roosevelt." he really is an honorable man. he is one of the first people in new york -- not the first, but he's part of the early cadre -- to speak out against hitler. he says this is wrong, this is just wrong. he -- took me a while to figure this out. he loves animals. he really, really loves animals. my god, you're growing up -- he was near the docks. when he was a kid, go back to being a kid near the docks. and what would happen is a ship would come in. now, long ocean voyages are really, really, really boring. i mean, really boring. i mean, in those days you're not talking about going from new york to london in four or five days like the titanic.

you're talking about months at sea, and you're coming in. finish so you would get a pet. you'd get a monkey, you'd get a dog, you know? really nice. now, you're in a port for a month or two, that's a pain in the ass. so you give it to a local kid. he had a miniature zoo in the back yard of his house on the lower east side. he loved animals. his protege is robert moses, and he really got robert moses into new york state politics administration. he's really the godfather to robert moses. robert moses was a son of a bitch and didn't like anybody, and he loved al smith for that. robert moses never served under everyone governor from al smith to nelson rockefeller. he called every one of them by their first name. there's only one man he addressed as governor, and that was al smith. so he did something beautiful for his friend. al, by then, was living on fifth avenue. and robert moses made him the

night custodian of the central park zoo with a key. and al would go over there later in his life, and he would just go and play with the animals all night. he would go in. and he was marvelous. he was absolutely marvelous with them. the great story, he trained a tiger. now, you've got to understand the tiger is the symbol of tammany hall. tammany's great enemy who dismantled it is a very famous mayor of italian-american descent. and he trained the tiger so that when visitors came by, he'd look into the cage, he'd look at the tight -- tiger and go, "laguardia." and the tiger would roar. and that was how he ended his years. it was majestic, it was very

lovely. it was the greatest gift possible. >> for more information on booktv's recent visit to anaheim and the many other destinations on our cities tour, go to c-span.org/citiestour. >> booktv tapes hundreds of author programs throughout the country all year long. here's a look at some of the events we're covering this week. on monday, the half king bar and restaurant in new york city has journalist james walsh reporting on union organizing from the employee and employer's perspective. then on tuesday we're in cambridge, massachusetts, at harvard bookstore for adam cohen's recount of the 1927 supreme court decision that permitted state sterilization of citizens deemed, quote, feeble-minded. on wednesday aclu attorney gillian thomas talked about title vii of the 1964 civil rights act which makes it illegal to discriminate based on

someone's sex in new york. we're back in brooklyn thursday for journalist ann newman's examination on how new medical innovations and longer life expectancies have affected how people die in the united states. next saturday and sunday we're live at the tucson festival of books from the campus of the university of arizona. our all-day coverage on both days includes author panels and your calls with the hikes of historian douglas brink lin, jonathan cozell and linda hershman and teresa duncan. that's a look at some of the author programs booktv is covering this week. many of these events are open to the public. look for them to air in the near future on book tv on c-span2. >> there's this one thing that he'd written in 1962 which had never been published, and it was a kind of essay he'd written. now, he was writing at that time essays. he wasn't doing his radio commentaries yet, but he wrote a

lot. i mean, it's one of the really surprising things about reagan, he probably wrote every day of his life. and he was a good writer. he wrote for the human voice, he wrote as someone who had developed his early career on radio. he wrote to read, not to be read on the page. but he was always writing these little essays and commentaries. and in this one written in 1962, he says, you know, it's, it's possible that communism will take over and, you know, that it will end in nuclear war and conflict. but you know what? i think it's more likely that communism, the soviet union will just collapse. he said because, he said communism isn't even a political system or an economic system. it's just a form of insanity. he said, it's a violation of human nature. it doesn't make any sense. nobody would want to live like that. and it's just, you know, this essay, and he kind of plays this up. you read this, wow, it's a

really interesting view because people on the right didn't think that then. they didn't think communism was going to collapse. but it was sort of reagan applying his common sense perspective on anything, on everything to communism. he says it doesn't make any sense for people to live like that. nobody would tolerate it. if they knew how we lived, they wouldn't stand for it. and he had this kernel of an idea that he held onto. and you find it repeated in various forms when he starts to do these really interesting radio commentaries in the rate 1970s which were the place he really developed his political ideas between his losing campaign for president in 1976 when he challenged gerald ford and his winning campaign in 1980. and that eccentric view matched up with some other eccentric views he had. you find also reading these commentaries reagan hated nuclear weapons. he'd been a pacifist. he called himself a pacifist in the 190s.

partly, you know, it was his early involvement in theaters. he went to see when he was very young, like 19 years old, this play, journey's end, which is a play about the first world war, british play that's kind of a pacifist play. it's about the waste of the first world war and the, you know, the trench warfare and these young men dying pointlessly. it had a huge impact on him. another thing that had a huge impact on him was when he was, in the second world war, making training films in hollywood but at a military base. the base was sent these early films of the liberation of auschwitz. there's this, you know, this myth, thing that's totally untrue said about reagan, that he claimed he was one of the people who liberated auschwitz. he never said anything like that. it's the kind of thing you can actually believe if you don't know the story. but he did see in 1945 films of the emaciated prisoners, the

piles of corporations, and it had a -- corpses, and it had a huge effect on him. ron jr. remembers his father trying to make him watch this years later, because he says you have to understand this about humanity. but it was another thing that influenced this idea he had that nuclear war would be totally horrifying and unacceptable. and he thought especially after he became president and the assassination attempt that his mission was to reduce the threat of nuclear weapons. and, you know, the conventional view, the conservative view is that, well, he had the strategy of peace through strength. came into office, big military buildup, you know, make the soviet union bankrupt, force them to collapse and vepped or. surrender. i don't think that's at all what happened if you look at the record. he was desperate for connection and negotiation with the soviet

leaders. in the reagan library, you can find these handwritten letters, long hand written letters he wrote to every soviet leader when he was president starting with brezhnev, chernenko, finally gorbachev. and these letters, they're really touching. he says, you know, you and i have the power to destroy the world. we also have the power to save the world and make peace. and we have to be able to communicate. we have to meet, we have to talk to each other. he was reaching out to try to form a connection, and he would get back these letters that were in this leninist boilerplate about western imperialism. and there's clearly, i mean, all these guys were dying, we now know, one after the other. but he wasn't able to make any connection. and he was terribly frustrated by that and terribly upset about it. all the time the defense buildup is going on during the first term when it's the sort of heyday of the neoconservatives and this hawkish view of the

world, reagan's onboard for that, but he's also really, really unhappy because he thinks the world is getting more dangerous. and when he finds out basically from a cia briefing that the soviets actually think that the united states might attack, that we have aggressive designs on them, he's shocked. how could they think that? we would never do that. and he -- i think in his second term -- didn't continue that strategy, he turned around completely. second term in relation to the soviets is more like a repudiation of the first term and an acknowledgment that what he tried during the first term didn't work. he didn't scare them to the bargaining table. and at that point reagan becomes an apostle of radical disarmament. i end mean, really radical. more radical than almost anybody on the left supported. he keeps saying in meetings why can't we abolish all nuclear

weapons? and, of course, this is tied up with something of a fantasy about star wars, he thinks he's going to replace nuclear weapons with a nuclear shield. he wanted to get rid of them. and he's constantly at these meetings with gorbachev trying to make the more radical proposal to get rid of weapons. >> you can watch this and other programs online at booktv.org. >> the book is called "arms and the university: military presence and the civic education of nonmilitary students." wisconsin professor donald downs is co-author. and, professor downs, in your book you write that though universities pride themselves on being liberally-minded and open to challenging ideas, this pride seemed less merited when it comes to the military. >> guest: right. and i think that we're less open than we should be if you just read the headlines from the last two years or so so, all the graduation speakers that haven't

been allowed to speak on campus and things like that. i've been concerned for a long time about the status of intellectual diversity, intellectual tolerance on campus. and back after 9/11 i could see in certain places themes about the military were part of that kind of close-mindedness. >> host: in what way? >> guest: well, after 9/11 most of the discussion, at least on this campus, that was public tended to be less about thinking about a potential military kind of solution and, you know, i'm as much against so-called militarism as anybody. wars you got to be careful about, they're very serious endeavors. but to not even consider that there might be some sort of military response along with others after 9/11, seemed to me, to be shutting off an entire realm of discourse and policy thinking. which was going on all over the country at that time. and you would think that a university, which is supposed the pride itself on thinking about all possible things, that it would be there too, and it just wasn't as much.

>> host: is there a bias against the military on this campus and on others? >> guest: well, this campus we actually did some empirical research in the book on that, and there isn't much. we do have a history here, twice they tried to kick rotc officer training corps off campus back during vietnam, which is a real turning point, as you can imagine, because of the up popularity of that war. and also because of the gays in the military issue. but we kept the rotc here. for the most part, people tolerate it. a few like it, a few don't. there has been a dearth of military history courses until recent times. ..